Any more DMUs?

[Xenophon PCDGS]

North Wales Coast will only be electrified if the obsession with north to south trains goes.

Not forgetting, of course, that the South Wales coast line has Cardiff on its route.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The problem with WAT-EXD is that whilst there's almost certainly a good business case for electrifying to Salisbury, but the rest of the route up to Exeter is more of a problem. It's unlikely to be worth electrifying without redoubling, and once you add all the costs together, I suspect the BCR falls through the floor. So, if you wanted to free up the copious quantity of Express Sprinters currently running the service, you'd need to solve those problem.

I think I've covered this before, but basically you choose one of:
1. Spend a fat wad of cash on full redoubling and electrifying. Apply dual-voltage 444-alikes (Oh look, it's the 444-alikes again. At least this time it's for SWT though!)
2. Split the service in half. Make WAT-SAL into EMU territory and run EXD-SAL (or maybe even EXD-SOU) with much fewer DMUs. You could still run the odd few of EXD-WAT through services in the peaks.
3. Come up with some kind of bi-modal EDMU design and use that.
4. Get some different DMUs for the service, remembering that the capacity of a 10x 158/9 is needed on peak trains and platform lengths won't allow for longer trains. In other words, Voyagers aren't going to help you here.
5. Accept that Express Sprinters are stuck here for the foreseeable and look elsewhere for your DMU cascade needs.

Unless one of you clever folks can come up with something I've not thought of.

5. comes with it's own question: where?

Personally, I think 1 and 3 sound like good ideas, 3 in particular (a bi-mode 158-alike or bi-mode 444-alike would be useful in a great many places). Or maybe you could do a combination of 1, 2 and 3:

• Wire to Salisbury
• Order some additional 444s for Portsmouth fasts etc. to cascade some 450s to slower/shorter workings such as Lymington and perhaps electrify the Southampton - Romsey - Salisbury route and run them with the released 450s, and
• Order bi-mode versions of 444s for the Waterloo - Exeter service, perhaps running in multiple with a straight-EMU unit as far as Salisbury with the bi-mode continuing on. If you've wired Southampton - Salisbury you could put some of these bi-mode 444s on Cardiff - Portsmouth too.

2a. Electrify Salisbury-Basingstoke and operate using EMUs that split/join at Salisbury and are push/pulled by a loco (that can power the EMUs' non-tractive systems and can control and be controlled by the EMU) between Salisbury and Exeter(/Bristol).

Only trouble with that idea is that somebody will probably say the 159s are on the route because locos couldn't cope with the frequent stops, or something. Or was that another route?

 

[krus_aragon]

N Wales Coast will only be electrified if the obsession with north to south trains goes.

Not forgetting, of course, that the South Wales coast line has Cardiff on its route.

Sorry, I don't follow your drift here...

Virtually all of Arriva's services to/from Bangor and Holyhead run via Shrewsbury, which isn't likely to be electrified sooner. (At least not the Chester-Shrewsbury or Shrewsbury-Newport routes.) They're a sizeable chunk of the services along the coast, probably around half (by mileage on the NWCL). If those services must continue to follow a non-electrified (north-south) route, it rather kills the business case for putting wires up on the coast, whether there's power at the Cardiff end or not, doesn't it?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Virtually all of Arriva's services to/from Bangor and Holyhead run via Shrewsbury, which isn't likely to be electrified sooner. (At least not the Chester-Shrewsbury or Shrewsbury-Newport routes.) They're a sizeable chunk of the services along the coast, probably around half (by mileage on the NWCL). If those services must continue to follow a non-electrified (north-south) route, it rather kills the business case for putting wires up on the coast

That's my view of it. The trains from Cardiff and Birmingham to Holyhead should be cut in two at Chester in my opinion, making it easier to make a case for electrification of either section.

Then, if the north Wales coast is electrified, I think an hourly Birmingham - Llandudno or Holyhead service should be introduced (running via the direct route, not via Wrexham and Shrewsbury) using a train similar to a 444 or 442, but powered by OHLE. I'd also introduce the same type of stock on services from Manchester to north Wales, perhaps with portion working to serve both Llandudno and Holyhead.

 

[northwichcat]

How many Manchester services go to Holyhead though? Most of them run to Llandudno, like I said, so even if you electrified all of north Wales you'd only save the hourly Manchester - Llandudno plus a handful of Virgin services a day (not all of which run to Holyhead either).

Westbound the following North Wales services could switch if you electrified Manchester/Crewe to Holyhead but not Llandudno:

05:30 Birmingham to Holyhead via Crewe (Virgin service)
06:50 Manchester to Llandudno Juntion
07:50 Manchester to Holyhead
08:50 Manchester to Holyhead
08:10 London to Bangor
09:10 London to Holyhead
10:50 Manchester to Bangor
16:10 London to Bangor
17:10 London to Holyhead
18:10 London to Holyhead
19:10 London to Holyhead
22:04 Chester to Holyhead

So if Llandudno Junction to Holyhead was wired and the timetable kept the same the wires would be unused for a large part of the day on a weekday.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's my view of it. The trains from Cardiff and Birmingham to Holyhead should be cut in two at Chester in my opinion, making it easier to make a case for electrification of either section.

The WAG do want a North Wales to South Wales service though. Maybe as a compromise:
* 2 hourly Manchester to Holyhead service
* 2 hourly Manchester to Llandudno Juntion service in alternate hours to above.
* 2 hourly Cardiff to Llandudno service
* Llandudno Junction to Llandudno service in alternate hours to above.
* Birmingham to North Wales services split at Crewe/Chester.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The WAG do want a North Wales to South Wales service though. Maybe as a compromise:
* 2 hourly Manchester to Holyhead service
* 2 hourly Manchester to Llandudno Juntion service in alternate hours to above.
* 2 hourly Cardiff to Llandudno service
* Llandudno Junction to Llandudno service in alternate hours to above.
* Birmingham to North Wales services split at Crewe/Chester.

My compromise would be keeping Gerald (on an accelerated calling pattern, like when it was first introduced but with Wrexham instead of Crewe) and introducing a mirror working, and perhaps a lunch time train. In other words:

• Holyhead - Wrexham - Cardiff express Up to 3 trains per day each way
• 0.5tph Cardiff - Wrexham - Chester
• 0.5tph Birmingham - Wrexham - Chester
• 1tph Birmingham - Crewe - Llandudno
• 1tph Manchester - Llandudno and Holyhead (split at Llandudno Junction)

 

[AndyLandy]

To be honest, I'm not sure I see the benefits of electrifying the North Wales line, even in CP6. Does it really have enough demand to justify it? I'd have thought the through journey opportunities would be more valuable than the handful of DMUs you'd save by electrifying.

Electrifying Crewe-Chester (by whichever route) makes sense. The handful of VT trains that run beyond could be diesel dragged Pendolinos, allowing VWC to standardise entirely on 390s. But surely the ATW services are all Sprinter or Coradia services, 2-4 vehicles long. So, unless the WAG have the political will to subsidise electrification costs, I'm struggling to see how the BCR works out.

(On a related note, what's the track layout around Shotton like? Can you travel directly between Hawarden and Flint?)

 

[northwichcat]

To be honest, I'm not sure I see the benefits of electrifying the North Wales line, even in CP6. Does it really have enough demand to justify it? I'd have thought the through journey opportunities would be more valuable than the handful of DMUs you'd save by electrifying.

Electrifying Crewe-Chester (by whichever route) makes sense. The handful of VT trains that run beyond could be diesel dragged Pendolinos, allowing VWC to standardise entirely on 390s. But surely the ATW services are all Sprinter or Coradia services, 2-4 vehicles long. So, unless the WAG have the political will to subsidise electrification costs, I'm struggling to see how the BCR works out.

One of the snags with Manchester to North Wales and London to North Wales services going over to electric is the unelectrified Mid-Cheshire line is regularly used for diversions in both cases and that is something Network Rail mentioned in their electrification RUS.

For North Wales to London getting passengers to go from train to replacement bus and then back to train again wouldn't be very good for what should be a direct service.

WAG do not have enough funds to be able to subside a long stretch of OHEs without asking central government for a grant or loan.

 

[AndyLandy]

One of the snags with Manchester to North Wales and London to North Wales services going over to electric is the unelectrified Mid-Cheshire line is regularly used for diversions in both cases and that is something Network Rail mentioned in their electrification RUS.

I think I've suggested before that I'd actually make the MCR the primary route into Chester and electrify from either Hartford (with a new chord) or Northwich (and down the Middlewich line) possibly even both. If the existing Crewe-Chester line is so full of overbridges, and often requires that trains are diverted away from it, I'd just close the stupid thing.

 

[Rhydgaled]

To be honest, I'm not sure I see the benefits of electrifying the North Wales line, even in CP6. Does it really have enough demand to justify it? I'd have thought the through journey opportunities would be more valuable than the handful of DMUs you'd save by electrifying.

Electrifying Crewe-Chester (by whichever route) makes sense. The handful of VT trains that run beyond could be diesel dragged Pendolinos, allowing VWC to standardise entirely on 390s. But surely the ATW services are all Sprinter or Coradia services, 2-4 vehicles long. So, unless the WAG have the political will to subsidise electrification costs, I'm struggling to see how the BCR works out.

I personally think hourly through journeys to Birmingham via Crewe (which you might gain if you wire the north Wales coast) would be more valuable than the current 2hourly through journeys to Cardiff (most of which are all-stations stoppers down the marches) and 2hourly through journeys to Birmingham via Shrewsbury.

Basically, electrification of the north Wales line would speed up the through trains to Birmingham (it can be faster to change at both Chester and Crewe at present) at the cost of most through journeys to Wrexham and Shrewsbury and slow through journeys to Cardiff.

As for Crewe-Chester, it only makes sense if you go over to dragged Pendolinos for all north Wales - London services. Otherwise you have to wire to Holyhead to get all the ICWC trains electric.

 

[HSTEd]

You get half of the services by going to Chester, which is considerably less than half way to Holyhead.

 

[Greybeard33]

I think I've suggested before that I'd actually make the MCR the primary route into Chester and electrify from either Hartford (with a new chord) or Northwich (and down the Middlewich line) possibly even both. If the existing Crewe-Chester line is so full of overbridges, and often requires that trains are diverted away from it, I'd just close the stupid thing.

If the aspiration in Manchester Airport's Master Plan (see pp 61 & 63) for a western rail link to the Mid-Cheshire eventually comes to fruition, it could prove shortsighted to have diverted Crewe-Chester services on to the single line Middlewich branch. The Plan talks about through services to Stoke and the East Midlands, which presumably would have to run via Northwich, Sandbach and Crewe to avoid reversals and lack of paths on the double track Wilmslow to Sandbach line.

Might not the alternative of a south to west chord at Hartford cause pathing problems on the double track section of the WCML between Crewe and Hartford?

What would be the relative costs of doubling, electrifying and raising the linespeed of the subsidence-prone Middlewich branch, versus electrifying the flooding-prone direct Crewe-Chester line?

 

[AndyLandy]

If the aspiration in Manchester Airport's Master Plan (see pp 61 & 63) for a western rail link to the Mid-Cheshire eventually comes to fruition, it could prove shortsighted to have diverted Crewe-Chester services on to the single line Middlewich branch. The Plan talks about through services to Stoke and the East Midlands, which presumably would have to run via Northwich, Sandbach and Crewe to avoid reversals and lack of paths on the double track Wilmslow to Sandbach line.

If we're going to go to the expense of electrifying it, I'd expect doubling and linespeed improvements to be part of the deal. Certainly it's only of limited use as it is. I don't imagine there'd be so much traffic that it would require more than two lines.

Might not the alternative of a south to west chord at Hartford cause pathing problems on the double track section of the WCML between Crewe and Hartford?

The WCML RUS has that section of line highlighted in amber, which is described as "Growth may be difficult to accommodate without affecting performance. Current traffic is constraining timetabling elsewhere. Sufficient flexibility in current timetable for recovery from perturbation."

I don't know how many freight paths run that way per hour, but passenger trains, outside of the peaks, there's 5tph each way through that section. (3x Virgin: EUS-LIV, EUS-GLC, BHM-GLC; 2x London Midland BHM-LIV)

Personally, I'd like to see the line quad-tracked through Winsford and Hartford, but I'm living in fantasy land there!

Realistically though, I would hope that 1tph more shouldn't be too unreasonable an ask. But I'm not a train planner, I've no idea how feasible it would be.

What would be the relative costs of doubling, electrifying and raising the linespeed of the subsidence-prone Middlewich branch, versus electrifying the flooding-prone direct Crewe-Chester line?

Well, that's the $64,000 question, isn't it? It will largely come down to the things you've highlighted (flooding and overbridges on the current line; subsidence on the Middlewich line; capacity constraints through the Weaver Valley) as well as the works needed on the MCR itself (Speed improvements in places like Mickle Trafford; The dozen or so overbridges along that route, in particular the ones right over the stations)

 

[Greybeard33]

Well, that's the $64,000 question, isn't it? It will largely come down to the things you've highlighted (flooding and overbridges on the current line; subsidence on the Middlewich line; capacity constraints through the Weaver Valley) as well as the works needed on the MCR itself (Speed improvements in places like Mickle Trafford; The dozen or so overbridges along that route, in particular the ones right over the stations)

Indeed. Not to mention redoubling Mickle Trafford to Mouldsworth. In my fantasy, the Mid-Cheshire would be electrified all the way to Stockport as an extension of the "electrified spine" for freight and as a diversionary route. That would at least relieve the Weaver Valley of the occasional electrically-hauled freight between Trafford Park and Mossend, that currently has to go all the way round via Crewe to stay under the wires!

 

[northwichcat]

Indeed. Not to mention redoubling Mickle Trafford to Mouldsworth. In my fantasy, the Mid-Cheshire would be electrified all the way to Stockport as an extension of the "electrified spine" for freight and as a diversionary route. That would at least relieve the Weaver Valley of the occasional electrically-hauled freight between Trafford Park and Mossend, that currently has to go all the way round via Crewe to stay under the wires!

Network Rail have also mooted the possibly of Liverpool-Runcorn-Northwich-Manchester Airport-Manchester and beyond and also Chester-Northwich-Manchester Airport-Yorkshire services so with Liverpool-Weaver Junction and Manchester Airport-Manchester already electrified and North TPE to be electrified an extended Manchester Airport spur may have electrification proposed alongside it.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I think I've suggested before that I'd actually make the MCR the primary route into Chester and electrify from either Hartford (with a new chord) or Northwich (and down the Middlewich line) possibly even both. If the existing Crewe-Chester line is so full of overbridges, and often requires that trains are diverted away from it, I'd just close the stupid thing.

I travel regularly over "the stupid thing", like many from Chester and North Wales.
The idea that it should be closed and services diverted via a compass-challenged route via Delamere and Middlewich is laughable.
Can you beat 19 minutes Chester-Crewe any other way?
I'm sure we'd all be keen on longer journey times to London. When used for diversions, it takes 65 minutes.
And there are no bay platforms at Crewe for terminators.
Flooding problems occur about 1 day a year, if that, no more than many other lines.

 

[northwichcat]

I travel regularly over "the stupid thing", like many from Chester and North Wales.
The idea that it should be closed and services diverted via a compass-challenged route via Delamere and Middlewich is laughable.
Can you beat 19 minutes Chester-Crewe any other way?
I'm sure we'd all be keen on longer journey times to London. When used for diversions, it takes 65 minutes.
And there are no bay platforms at Crewe for terminators.
Flooding problems occur about 1 day a year, if that, no more than many other lines.

Last year the line flooded on the 24th September and it was the 27th September before passenger trains were allowed back on it. MP Fiona Bruce put this fact forward in parliament to back up the case for Network Rail investing in upgrading the Middlewich line which would make the Greenbank-Crewe timings similar to those for Hartford-Crewe and make Chester-Greenbank-Crewe around 40 minutes in a timetabled non-stopping path. (Diverted London to Chester services catch up a Mid-Cheshire train stopping at all stations.)

Some Holyhead-London and reverse services are stopped at Chester for up to 10 minutes to allow Voyagers to join up and split, so if you could eliminate that and find another few minutes of time savings (e.g. line speed improvements on North Wales Coast) then it would be possible to have Holyhead-London via Middlewich in a similar running time to the current time, even if Chester-Crewe journeys would be slower.

You may call the suggestion laughable but if you converted Chester-Crewe to light rail and diverted heavy rail via Middlewich the suggestion would be almost identical to the situation where the Sale line became Metrolink!

Network Rail have scratched their heads about how to electrify Crewe to Chester and have been unable to come up with a viable solution (dis-continuous electrification being the closest they've got which would mean the shuttle would have to stay DMU or get a specially designed EMU.)

 

[HSTEd]

Additionally electrification to Chester via any route would mean that Pendolinos would be usable on the Chester terminators.

That means that you can pick up potentially a few minutes on the journey from London to Crewe thanks to the differential in EPS speeds for Voyagers and Pendolinos. (One stop probably doesn't cost 10 minutes for a Pendolino which is how much longer the Voyagers with one stop take than them)

And the reason it takes 65 minutes via Middlewich at the moment is because the line is limited to 20mph..... even at 50mph would drastically reduce the travel time by 15 minutes or more.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Network Rail have scratched their heads about how to electrify Crewe to Chester and have been unable to come up with a viable solution (dis-continuous electrification being the closest they've got which would mean the shuttle would have to stay DMU or get a specially designed EMU.)

Why is it so hard to electrify properly? And does much freight use the line?

 

[HSTEd]

Why is it so hard to electrify properly? And does much freight use the line?

It is apparently full to the gills with low bridges.

 

[The Planner]

Needs lots of bridge work, which will import a lot of cost. Freight can't use it properly due to the gauge, fix the gauge and they probably would increase. Double edged sword.

 

[Dolge]

Yes there's a lot of bridges between Chester and Crewe. So what? NR know how to raise bridges and/or lower track. Electrification wouldn't be especially cheap because of the bridgework which is one reason its isn't going ahead, another being that it wouldn't allow much traffic to be transferred to electric motive power unless the N Wales expresses are curtailed at Chester, which would be unpopular to say the least. Crewe - Chester electrification isn't particularly good value on its won in other words; it's not impossible or even particularly difficult.

Compare that with the cost of partial quadrupling of the WCML, a new high speed junction at Hartford with substantial land take, redoubling from Mouldsworth to Mickle Trafford, raising line speeds as far as possible through Delamere Forest (which won't be possible to any great extent because it's a curvaceous route) and rebuilding and resignalling Mickle Trafford junction and the Chester approaches and a relatively straightforward electrification (alot of bridgework but no other infrastructure work) will come out, not a bit cheaper, but FAR cheaper.

And if ever this daft idea was taken forward the result would be a substantially slower Chester and N Wales to London service and reduced capacity. I can't believe that anyone could seriously raise the possibility.

 

[HSTEd]

Compare that with the cost of partial quadrupling of the WCML, a new high speed junction at Hartford with substantial land take

It wouldn't really have to be "high speed" and you probably wouldn't have to quadrouple the WCML to fit in two paths an hour.
£13m for the chord should cover it as it did for similar projects in other places.

redoubling from Mouldsworth to Mickle Trafford, raising line speeds as far as possible through Delamere Forest (which won't be possible to any great extent because it's a curvaceous route) and rebuilding and resignalling Mickle Trafford junction and the Chester approaches

Why do you need to do all of that?

Travel time between Greenbank and Chester with intermediate stops is only 28 minutes at the moment, which seems to indicate that you would only be about 10-15 minutes down even with no speed improvements at all.

I doubt the 7km of single track between Mouldsworth and Mickle Trafford is a showstopper and even if it causes impossible issues, a dynamic loop at about the half way mark would likely permit the extra two paths an hour without requiring a full redoubling.
Even if we assign a further ten million to that we only get ~£20-25m.

and a relatively straightforward electrification (alot of bridgework but no other infrastructure work) will come out, not a bit cheaper, but FAR cheaper.

Crewe-Chester comes out at 32 route kilometres, meaning 64km of track to electrify. That comes out at £100m before you even include the excess number of bridges over that of a normal route.

Hartford-Mouldsworth-Chester has 16km of double track route and 7km of single track route, bringing us to 39km of track.
That costs roughly £60m to electrify.

Which means even after spending £25m on a dynamic loop and on the new Chord at Hartford you still have £15m plus whatever the bridges cost above the £100m estimate to spend on further resignalling and speed improvements.

I doubt the direct electrification route is going to be "far cheaper".

And if ever this daft idea was taken forward the result would be a substantially slower Chester and N Wales to London service and reduced capacity. I can't believe that anyone could seriously raise the possibility.

Well in the future your choice is probably going to come down to this:
You can have a "substantially slower" electric service to Chester or we can truncate all the North Wales-London trains to Crewe and reassign the WCML path to a route that can use a Pendolino to maximise capacity on the southern WCML and to save increasingly expensive diesel.

And with some Pendolino vs Voyager differential time savings on the southern WCML I am not sure the journey time increase would be anything like what you seem to suggest it would be. (Between London and MKC Voyagers are apparently timetabled to be 4 minutes slower than a Pendolino would be.

 

[AndyLandy]

The other interesting thing if we do both (Chord at Hartford and Middlewich re-double) is that you then have two routes between Crewe and Acton Bridge. If the Middlewich branch could take some freight, you could potentially free up some passenger capacity through the Weaver Valley.

A lot of it depends on what speeds you could realistically attain on the Mid-Cheshire line from Northwich to Chester, and how the cost stacks up against dealing with the overbridges on the current line. (Not forgetting that there's something in the region of a dozen or so to contend with between Cuddington and Chester already)

I'm not saying that this is the solution, but I don't think it's unrealistic. It could well be that work to the existing line is the best way to electrify into Chester, but we shouldn't rule out other possibilities.

 

[northwichcat]

Yes there's a lot of bridges between Chester and Crewe. So what? NR know how to raise bridges and/or lower track.

Network Rail have said the costs involved in doing so doesn't make it an economically viable option.

Compare that with the cost of partial quadrupling of the WCML, a new high speed junction at Hartford with substantial land take, redoubling from Mouldsworth to Mickle Trafford, raising line speeds as far as possible through Delamere Forest (which won't be possible to any great extent because it's a curvaceous route) and rebuilding and resignalling Mickle Trafford junction and the Chester approaches and a relatively straightforward electrification (alot of bridgework but no other infrastructure work) will come out, not a bit cheaper, but FAR cheaper.

There are potential wider benefits of doing work on the WCML or Mid-Cheshire line. For instance, if Liverpool-London was to go to 2tph or if the western Airport link gets built. I doubt Chester-Crewe will go above 2tph in the foreseeable future.

 

[AndyLandy]

There are potential wider benefits of doing work on the WCML or Mid-Cheshire line. For instance, if Liverpool-London was to go to 2tph or if the western Airport link gets built. I doubt Chester-Crewe will go above 2tph in the foreseeable future.

That's always been my underlying reasoning for considering these alternate options. The existing Crewe-Chester line is only of benefit to trains running between those two places. There are no intermediate stations or other journey opportunities. These other routes offer some additional benefits, so might well offer a better overall BCR, so long as existing CRE-CTR journey times aren't too adversely affected.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Whilst we are in the general area, what was the line used for that had two railway stations on it....Helsby & Alvanley and Manley.

Is there any future use for this line ?

 

[Greybeard33]

Well in the future your choice is probably going to come down to this:
You can have a "substantially slower" electric service to Chester or we can truncate all the North Wales-London trains to Crewe and reassign the WCML path to a route that can use a Pendolino to maximise capacity on the southern WCML and to save increasingly expensive diesel.

In my view much of the DMU mileage under the wires, throughout the network, is a consequence of the lack of will to provide quick, reliable connections. This leads to the obsession with trying to provide through sevices from almost anywhere to practically everywhere else, regardless of electrification boundaries, "because passengers hate changing". I think it is appalling that, 50 years after WCML electrification between Manchester and Birmingham, the only through service between Britain's second and third largest conurbations is provided by overcrowded, noisy Voyagers running under the wires. Just to avoid a change at New Street for Bristol or Bournemouth.

In my (limited) experience of the Swiss network, changes seldom take more than 5 minutes and connections are guaranteed, even between different operators (e.g. SBB and RhB) and between trains and buses. In Britain, a 20 minute connection time is risky and trains seldom wait, even for an advertised connection from a service of the same TOC.

Passengers would be less reluctant to rely on connecting services if they could be sure of reaching their destination without undue delay, and if it were possible to check in heavy items of baggage rather than lug them over footbridges and through subways. DMUs could then be kept on the unelectrified lines where they belong. It is not rocket science!

 

[northwichcat]

In my view much of the DMU mileage under the wires, throughout the network, is a consequence of the lack of will to provide quick, reliable connections. This leads to the obsession with trying to provide through sevices from almost anywhere to practically everywhere else, regardless of electrification boundaries, "because passengers hate changing". I think it is appalling that, 50 years after WCML electrification between Manchester and Birmingham, the only through service between Britain's second and third largest conurbations is provided by overcrowded, noisy Voyagers running under the wires. Just to avoid a change at New Street for Bristol or Bournemouth.

Under the previous XC franchise when the standard pattern involved alternate Manchester XC trains terminating at Birmingham and Edinburgh-Bristol services. DfT proposed that the Manchester-Birmingham only services should switch to 350s but Virgin objected as that would have meant either they would have had a small class 350 fleet or alternatively they've had lost services to London Midland.

 

[Rhydgaled]

It is apparently full to the gills with low bridges.

Needs lots of bridge work, which will import a lot of cost. Freight can't use it properly due to the gauge, fix the gauge and they probably would increase. Double edged sword.

Well then, if there isn't alot of freight (if any) and the problem is low bridges could the tactics used on that Scottish branch (I can't remember if they banned frieght altogether or just electric freight) be used to avoid bridge works? Alternatively, if raising the bridges would also enhance the freight guage maybe that would strengthen the case?